<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_17_045236</id>
	<title>Computer Scientist Looks At ICBM Security</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1261054620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Computer security guru Matt Blaze takes <a href="http://www.crypto.com/blog/titans">a tour of a decommissioned ICBM complex in Arizona</a>. Cool photos, insightful perspective on two man control, perimeter security, human factors and why we didn't blow ourselves up. From the article: 'The most prominent security mechanism at the Titan site, aside from the multiple layers of thick blast-proof entry doors and the fact that the entire complex is buried underground, was procedural: almost all activities required two person control. Everywhere outside of the kitchen, sleeping quarters and toilet were "no lone zones" where a second person had to be present at all times, even for on-duty members of the launch crews.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Computer security guru Matt Blaze takes a tour of a decommissioned ICBM complex in Arizona .
Cool photos , insightful perspective on two man control , perimeter security , human factors and why we did n't blow ourselves up .
From the article : 'The most prominent security mechanism at the Titan site , aside from the multiple layers of thick blast-proof entry doors and the fact that the entire complex is buried underground , was procedural : almost all activities required two person control .
Everywhere outside of the kitchen , sleeping quarters and toilet were " no lone zones " where a second person had to be present at all times , even for on-duty members of the launch crews .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Computer security guru Matt Blaze takes a tour of a decommissioned ICBM complex in Arizona.
Cool photos, insightful perspective on two man control, perimeter security, human factors and why we didn't blow ourselves up.
From the article: 'The most prominent security mechanism at the Titan site, aside from the multiple layers of thick blast-proof entry doors and the fact that the entire complex is buried underground, was procedural: almost all activities required two person control.
Everywhere outside of the kitchen, sleeping quarters and toilet were "no lone zones" where a second person had to be present at all times, even for on-duty members of the launch crews.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354</id>
	<title>And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1261058880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the <b>buddy system</b>!<br> <br>

I joke but human redundancy is probably your best bet and pretty reassuring considering I've seen Dr. Strangelove twenty times or so.  Also I enjoyed <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattblaze/4181758601/" title="flickr.com">this picture</a> [flickr.com].  Is it a good idea to store the keys right above the safe to the Emergency War Orders?  No matter, if you know the combination to the lock and have a twenty pound sledge, those hastily welded rings holding on the safety padlocks will take a few seconds to remove.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... the buddy system !
I joke but human redundancy is probably your best bet and pretty reassuring considering I 've seen Dr. Strangelove twenty times or so .
Also I enjoyed this picture [ flickr.com ] .
Is it a good idea to store the keys right above the safe to the Emergency War Orders ?
No matter , if you know the combination to the lock and have a twenty pound sledge , those hastily welded rings holding on the safety padlocks will take a few seconds to remove .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... the buddy system!
I joke but human redundancy is probably your best bet and pretty reassuring considering I've seen Dr. Strangelove twenty times or so.
Also I enjoyed this picture [flickr.com].
Is it a good idea to store the keys right above the safe to the Emergency War Orders?
No matter, if you know the combination to the lock and have a twenty pound sledge, those hastily welded rings holding on the safety padlocks will take a few seconds to remove.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472554</id>
	<title>Re:And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1261060980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thinking about it, the padlocks aren't for keeping the safe closed, they are for making it obvious that a single person tried to open it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thinking about it , the padlocks are n't for keeping the safe closed , they are for making it obvious that a single person tried to open it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thinking about it, the padlocks aren't for keeping the safe closed, they are for making it obvious that a single person tried to open it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472644</id>
	<title>Re:Soviet Union</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1261061580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So what if the Limeys decided to get some revenge for 1776?</p></div><p>They already did.  It didn't involve nuclear weapons though.  They used <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spice\_Girls" title="wikipedia.org">something far more deadly</a> [wikipedia.org] and destructive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what if the Limeys decided to get some revenge for 1776 ? They already did .
It did n't involve nuclear weapons though .
They used something far more deadly [ wikipedia.org ] and destructive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what if the Limeys decided to get some revenge for 1776?They already did.
It didn't involve nuclear weapons though.
They used something far more deadly [wikipedia.org] and destructive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472530</id>
	<title>Re:And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1261060740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>,quote&gt;i bet they had weapons and live ammo with them so if you tried to break into the safe by yourself your buddy might have to shoot you</p><p>I don't know if they had small arms with them in the silo but I would imagine they did.  If so then it's not a real stretch to imagine that a launch officer who went off his rocker would have to contend with lead.  Preemptively killing his partner wouldn't help him either.  Gaining access to the keys doesn't permit you to launch the missile(s).  All of the controls are far enough apart to make it physically impossible for a single person to operate them
</p><p>A somewhat different situation but remember the movie Crimson Tide?  A buddy of mine in the service said if something like that happened in the real world the captain would have just shot the XO for insubordination and carried out his orders without him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>,quote &gt; i bet they had weapons and live ammo with them so if you tried to break into the safe by yourself your buddy might have to shoot youI do n't know if they had small arms with them in the silo but I would imagine they did .
If so then it 's not a real stretch to imagine that a launch officer who went off his rocker would have to contend with lead .
Preemptively killing his partner would n't help him either .
Gaining access to the keys does n't permit you to launch the missile ( s ) .
All of the controls are far enough apart to make it physically impossible for a single person to operate them A somewhat different situation but remember the movie Crimson Tide ?
A buddy of mine in the service said if something like that happened in the real world the captain would have just shot the XO for insubordination and carried out his orders without him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>,quote&gt;i bet they had weapons and live ammo with them so if you tried to break into the safe by yourself your buddy might have to shoot youI don't know if they had small arms with them in the silo but I would imagine they did.
If so then it's not a real stretch to imagine that a launch officer who went off his rocker would have to contend with lead.
Preemptively killing his partner wouldn't help him either.
Gaining access to the keys doesn't permit you to launch the missile(s).
All of the controls are far enough apart to make it physically impossible for a single person to operate them
A somewhat different situation but remember the movie Crimson Tide?
A buddy of mine in the service said if something like that happened in the real world the captain would have just shot the XO for insubordination and carried out his orders without him.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30475824</id>
	<title>I've been inside one of the abandoned sites!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261075620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live within 4 miles of one of the Titan II sites in SE Arizona. They are up and down the1-10 and 1-19 freeway from Tucson. When they were decommissioned, the silos were filled with debris and cement and permanently disabled, the control rooms and Blast rooms were not. Many of the sites were sold to people who later covered them up. Some didn't do such a good job and I was able to find one that afforded access, although you had to shimmy down a small shaft about 30 feet to get to the Control center and the crew quarters. I wasn't the first to do this and there were some pics on flicker that were taken by other "explorers".</p><p>One of the things that struck me was the extreme solitude you got inside one of these. All of the instrumentation and most of the furnishings have long ago been stripped out. There were lots of electronic cabinets and a few desirable computer racks (including a nice DEC PDP rack I could have used for my PDP-11)</p><p>The Titan II ICBM's were large a liquid fueled and were extremely dangerous. The Titan II was used to launch the Gemini capsules in the 60's. There was a greater danger due to a hydrazine explosion (like the one one in Arkansas) than by a nuclear explosion. Still, I shudder to thing of a 9 megaton nuclear warhead parked 4 miles from my house...for 20 years!! The Titan II ICBM had the distinction of carrying the largest nuclear warhead by a missile...ever! Later the one big warhead were replaced by several smaller mirv warheads.</p><p>I remember after crawling through the access shaft and walking through the terrible dark control center and then using a ladder to get to the crew quarters, I could have imagined what it was to be working in one of these. Someone else had that feeling also and inscribed by one of the places where the bunks may have been, I saw this graffiti written on the cement wall of the bunker:</p><p>"You've just launched a motherfukin nuclear missile and started World War III and doomed mankind...It's Miller Time!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live within 4 miles of one of the Titan II sites in SE Arizona .
They are up and down the1-10 and 1-19 freeway from Tucson .
When they were decommissioned , the silos were filled with debris and cement and permanently disabled , the control rooms and Blast rooms were not .
Many of the sites were sold to people who later covered them up .
Some did n't do such a good job and I was able to find one that afforded access , although you had to shimmy down a small shaft about 30 feet to get to the Control center and the crew quarters .
I was n't the first to do this and there were some pics on flicker that were taken by other " explorers " .One of the things that struck me was the extreme solitude you got inside one of these .
All of the instrumentation and most of the furnishings have long ago been stripped out .
There were lots of electronic cabinets and a few desirable computer racks ( including a nice DEC PDP rack I could have used for my PDP-11 ) The Titan II ICBM 's were large a liquid fueled and were extremely dangerous .
The Titan II was used to launch the Gemini capsules in the 60 's .
There was a greater danger due to a hydrazine explosion ( like the one one in Arkansas ) than by a nuclear explosion .
Still , I shudder to thing of a 9 megaton nuclear warhead parked 4 miles from my house...for 20 years ! !
The Titan II ICBM had the distinction of carrying the largest nuclear warhead by a missile...ever !
Later the one big warhead were replaced by several smaller mirv warheads.I remember after crawling through the access shaft and walking through the terrible dark control center and then using a ladder to get to the crew quarters , I could have imagined what it was to be working in one of these .
Someone else had that feeling also and inscribed by one of the places where the bunks may have been , I saw this graffiti written on the cement wall of the bunker : " You 've just launched a motherfukin nuclear missile and started World War III and doomed mankind...It 's Miller Time !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live within 4 miles of one of the Titan II sites in SE Arizona.
They are up and down the1-10 and 1-19 freeway from Tucson.
When they were decommissioned, the silos were filled with debris and cement and permanently disabled, the control rooms and Blast rooms were not.
Many of the sites were sold to people who later covered them up.
Some didn't do such a good job and I was able to find one that afforded access, although you had to shimmy down a small shaft about 30 feet to get to the Control center and the crew quarters.
I wasn't the first to do this and there were some pics on flicker that were taken by other "explorers".One of the things that struck me was the extreme solitude you got inside one of these.
All of the instrumentation and most of the furnishings have long ago been stripped out.
There were lots of electronic cabinets and a few desirable computer racks (including a nice DEC PDP rack I could have used for my PDP-11)The Titan II ICBM's were large a liquid fueled and were extremely dangerous.
The Titan II was used to launch the Gemini capsules in the 60's.
There was a greater danger due to a hydrazine explosion (like the one one in Arkansas) than by a nuclear explosion.
Still, I shudder to thing of a 9 megaton nuclear warhead parked 4 miles from my house...for 20 years!!
The Titan II ICBM had the distinction of carrying the largest nuclear warhead by a missile...ever!
Later the one big warhead were replaced by several smaller mirv warheads.I remember after crawling through the access shaft and walking through the terrible dark control center and then using a ladder to get to the crew quarters, I could have imagined what it was to be working in one of these.
Someone else had that feeling also and inscribed by one of the places where the bunks may have been, I saw this graffiti written on the cement wall of the bunker:"You've just launched a motherfukin nuclear missile and started World War III and doomed mankind...It's Miller Time!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30474680</id>
	<title>Re:co-ed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261070820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spent 8 years in SAC at ICBM sites on a Combat Targeting Team... we optically aimed the missiles using a theodolite and programmed in the targets and the methods of arriving at the target, as well as the war plans.</p><p>If a launch control facility (LCF) did go rogue for some purpose then another LCF would simply "Inhibit" the launch thus preventing it from actually launching. Another safe guard.</p><p>Also all members were under the AF 35-7 which was the manual pertaining to human reliability. As an example our team (three man team) had to work together and know each other and if anything seemed to become out of kilter then it was reported for upper staff to review... as an example, one of the guys on my team's wife started talking about leaving him and so he was put on duty in the office until he was evaluated as being "OK".</p><p>This was to prevent the stress of a personal relationship of any kind from affecting the work being performed. How often do we hear about someone filing for divorce and the other spouse goes postal... it prevented that kind of thing when dealing from issues of money, family issues, alcohol issues and etc. There was no limit as to what could appear to impact a person and we took it seriously.</p><p>Also we each were armed with a side gun to prevent someone from violating the two-man concept spoken about in the article and on some other posts here.</p><p>I personally assist in the posturing of missiles at Malmstom, Minot, Whiteman and Grand Forks AFB then was transfered to Vandenburg to assist in launches there.</p><p>Each SAC base had a team of experts who evaluated each task that was performed to see that it was completed according to the appropriate technical manual.  Also Vandenberg had a special group (3905) that not only evaluated the experts but also the regular staff at all levels again to ensure proficiency and standardization across the various bases.</p><p>It was hard work but it was fun too. Sort of like the work we do today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spent 8 years in SAC at ICBM sites on a Combat Targeting Team... we optically aimed the missiles using a theodolite and programmed in the targets and the methods of arriving at the target , as well as the war plans.If a launch control facility ( LCF ) did go rogue for some purpose then another LCF would simply " Inhibit " the launch thus preventing it from actually launching .
Another safe guard.Also all members were under the AF 35-7 which was the manual pertaining to human reliability .
As an example our team ( three man team ) had to work together and know each other and if anything seemed to become out of kilter then it was reported for upper staff to review... as an example , one of the guys on my team 's wife started talking about leaving him and so he was put on duty in the office until he was evaluated as being " OK " .This was to prevent the stress of a personal relationship of any kind from affecting the work being performed .
How often do we hear about someone filing for divorce and the other spouse goes postal... it prevented that kind of thing when dealing from issues of money , family issues , alcohol issues and etc .
There was no limit as to what could appear to impact a person and we took it seriously.Also we each were armed with a side gun to prevent someone from violating the two-man concept spoken about in the article and on some other posts here.I personally assist in the posturing of missiles at Malmstom , Minot , Whiteman and Grand Forks AFB then was transfered to Vandenburg to assist in launches there.Each SAC base had a team of experts who evaluated each task that was performed to see that it was completed according to the appropriate technical manual .
Also Vandenberg had a special group ( 3905 ) that not only evaluated the experts but also the regular staff at all levels again to ensure proficiency and standardization across the various bases.It was hard work but it was fun too .
Sort of like the work we do today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spent 8 years in SAC at ICBM sites on a Combat Targeting Team... we optically aimed the missiles using a theodolite and programmed in the targets and the methods of arriving at the target, as well as the war plans.If a launch control facility (LCF) did go rogue for some purpose then another LCF would simply "Inhibit" the launch thus preventing it from actually launching.
Another safe guard.Also all members were under the AF 35-7 which was the manual pertaining to human reliability.
As an example our team (three man team) had to work together and know each other and if anything seemed to become out of kilter then it was reported for upper staff to review... as an example, one of the guys on my team's wife started talking about leaving him and so he was put on duty in the office until he was evaluated as being "OK".This was to prevent the stress of a personal relationship of any kind from affecting the work being performed.
How often do we hear about someone filing for divorce and the other spouse goes postal... it prevented that kind of thing when dealing from issues of money, family issues, alcohol issues and etc.
There was no limit as to what could appear to impact a person and we took it seriously.Also we each were armed with a side gun to prevent someone from violating the two-man concept spoken about in the article and on some other posts here.I personally assist in the posturing of missiles at Malmstom, Minot, Whiteman and Grand Forks AFB then was transfered to Vandenburg to assist in launches there.Each SAC base had a team of experts who evaluated each task that was performed to see that it was completed according to the appropriate technical manual.
Also Vandenberg had a special group (3905) that not only evaluated the experts but also the regular staff at all levels again to ensure proficiency and standardization across the various bases.It was hard work but it was fun too.
Sort of like the work we do today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472628</id>
	<title>Not classified, not secret, don't worry</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1261061460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My cousin was one of those guys with the keys and a gun and a buddy for many years.  He's retired now and shares the stories at family reunions.  He was a colonel so I'm sure he knows exactly what he can and cannot talk about.  What's even better are his stories about winter life in rural North Dakota.</p><p>This stuff has been out in the open for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My cousin was one of those guys with the keys and a gun and a buddy for many years .
He 's retired now and shares the stories at family reunions .
He was a colonel so I 'm sure he knows exactly what he can and can not talk about .
What 's even better are his stories about winter life in rural North Dakota.This stuff has been out in the open for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My cousin was one of those guys with the keys and a gun and a buddy for many years.
He's retired now and shares the stories at family reunions.
He was a colonel so I'm sure he knows exactly what he can and cannot talk about.
What's even better are his stories about winter life in rural North Dakota.This stuff has been out in the open for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472796</id>
	<title>Re:And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>berwiki</author>
	<datestamp>1261062600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the safe wasnt designed to be impenetrable, but "rated to resist forced entry for five minutes." (per the flickr description).

<br> <br>I guess the army determined that after 5 minutes of hacking away with your sledge, someone would come to see what the fuss was about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the safe wasnt designed to be impenetrable , but " rated to resist forced entry for five minutes .
" ( per the flickr description ) .
I guess the army determined that after 5 minutes of hacking away with your sledge , someone would come to see what the fuss was about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the safe wasnt designed to be impenetrable, but "rated to resist forced entry for five minutes.
" (per the flickr description).
I guess the army determined that after 5 minutes of hacking away with your sledge, someone would come to see what the fuss was about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30474394</id>
	<title>There was no security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261069440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have all seen a movie where they take out a card with multiple lines of 20 digit numbers and two people have to read theirs before a strike is authorized.</p><p>Turns out they were so paranoid that ALL the launch number were zeros.  Everyone in power was so afraid of not being able to launch that they decided to short circuit the security.  This came out a few years after the US and Russia stood down their nukes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have all seen a movie where they take out a card with multiple lines of 20 digit numbers and two people have to read theirs before a strike is authorized.Turns out they were so paranoid that ALL the launch number were zeros .
Everyone in power was so afraid of not being able to launch that they decided to short circuit the security .
This came out a few years after the US and Russia stood down their nukes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have all seen a movie where they take out a card with multiple lines of 20 digit numbers and two people have to read theirs before a strike is authorized.Turns out they were so paranoid that ALL the launch number were zeros.
Everyone in power was so afraid of not being able to launch that they decided to short circuit the security.
This came out a few years after the US and Russia stood down their nukes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472422</id>
	<title>Is it even safe</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1261059540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all the paranoia about tuhrrarists, is it even safe to be reading this?  BRB, someone at the d</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all the paranoia about tuhrrarists , is it even safe to be reading this ?
BRB , someone at the d</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all the paranoia about tuhrrarists, is it even safe to be reading this?
BRB, someone at the d</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472306</id>
	<title>First Launch!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261058520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may take two people to launch an ICBM, but it only takes one troll to launch a first post!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may take two people to launch an ICBM , but it only takes one troll to launch a first post !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may take two people to launch an ICBM, but it only takes one troll to launch a first post!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30473514</id>
	<title>Re:co-ed</title>
	<author>WinterSolstice</author>
	<datestamp>1261066140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would expect that they tested it quite often. That's one of the biggest fears of the military mindset - what if one person blinks?</p><p>Just as a guess - they were probably far more worried that one man *wouldn't* launch when told to, rather than would try to launch solo. I think they usually included a massive fudge factor in their missile launch simulations, assuming that x percent of missiles wouldn't launch for whatever reason.</p><p>If the one man goes bad and tries to launch scenario had been even a remote issue, don't you think the KGB would have tried? They probably tried to get in those quite a few times (and I'm sure we tried to do the same). I doubt it was as simple as all that - for one thing, I suspect nobody truly knew which codes controlled the launch and which were bogus/invalid. That order probably had to come from remote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would expect that they tested it quite often .
That 's one of the biggest fears of the military mindset - what if one person blinks ? Just as a guess - they were probably far more worried that one man * would n't * launch when told to , rather than would try to launch solo .
I think they usually included a massive fudge factor in their missile launch simulations , assuming that x percent of missiles would n't launch for whatever reason.If the one man goes bad and tries to launch scenario had been even a remote issue , do n't you think the KGB would have tried ?
They probably tried to get in those quite a few times ( and I 'm sure we tried to do the same ) .
I doubt it was as simple as all that - for one thing , I suspect nobody truly knew which codes controlled the launch and which were bogus/invalid .
That order probably had to come from remote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would expect that they tested it quite often.
That's one of the biggest fears of the military mindset - what if one person blinks?Just as a guess - they were probably far more worried that one man *wouldn't* launch when told to, rather than would try to launch solo.
I think they usually included a massive fudge factor in their missile launch simulations, assuming that x percent of missiles wouldn't launch for whatever reason.If the one man goes bad and tries to launch scenario had been even a remote issue, don't you think the KGB would have tried?
They probably tried to get in those quite a few times (and I'm sure we tried to do the same).
I doubt it was as simple as all that - for one thing, I suspect nobody truly knew which codes controlled the launch and which were bogus/invalid.
That order probably had to come from remote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30475592</id>
	<title>Re:And from above . . .</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1261074600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Great article. As someone who grew up in Cheyenne, WY near F.E. Warren AFB (an AFB without planes or a landing strip - you can guess the mission) the details of these monsters have always fascinated me. I'd hear stories from my friends whose dads worked either as the missile capsule crews themselves or were maintenance personnel.</p><p>If Slashdot readers are flying in and out of Denver International Airport (or any area around CO, NE, WY) you can look out the window and see the launch facilities from the air. Amid the farm lands and country roads, you can look down and see an outcrop of buildings and maybe a quonset hut or two, and then a separate concrete reinforced pad maybe a hundred yards away; the whole area carefully fenced. You can tell they don't quite fit in with everything else. The number of them is startling. Yeah, in fact a little scary. But the author is correct when he states that in the (then) USSR they had the exact same thing pointing at us. Gives me the willies still.</p></div><p>As someone who grew up in part in northern Colorado, and ran across several missile silos while out on horseback or mountain biking, I'd like to point out that Warren AFB has helicopters, lots and lots of helicopters, and I've been told they show up in a hurry if you spend too much time poking about a missile silo because of the rash of anti-missile protests in the '80's.
Warren *does* have a landing strip, actually: the WWI flying ace Eddie Rickenbacher wrecked a plane there once in the 1920's.  But AFAIK it hasn't been used in 40 years.</p><p>
If anyone is bored, <a href="http://www.siloworld.com/COORDINATES/LOCAL.htm" title="siloworld.com">here's a list of coordinates for known ICBM sites</a> [siloworld.com] in the US.  <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Arvada,+Jefferson,+Colorado&amp;ll=39.66536,-104.492276&amp;spn=0.005575,0.009377&amp;t=h&amp;z=17" title="google.com">Here's satellite photography of a silo I found while out riding horses</a> [google.com].  It's empty.  There was a silo you could tour at <a href="http://www.poudretrail.org/mp.htm" title="poudretrail.org">Greeley's Missile Silo Park</a> [poudretrail.org] but from what I've heard, the tornado two years ago ripped up all the above-ground stuff, including the museum, so it might not be all that interesting now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great article .
As someone who grew up in Cheyenne , WY near F.E .
Warren AFB ( an AFB without planes or a landing strip - you can guess the mission ) the details of these monsters have always fascinated me .
I 'd hear stories from my friends whose dads worked either as the missile capsule crews themselves or were maintenance personnel.If Slashdot readers are flying in and out of Denver International Airport ( or any area around CO , NE , WY ) you can look out the window and see the launch facilities from the air .
Amid the farm lands and country roads , you can look down and see an outcrop of buildings and maybe a quonset hut or two , and then a separate concrete reinforced pad maybe a hundred yards away ; the whole area carefully fenced .
You can tell they do n't quite fit in with everything else .
The number of them is startling .
Yeah , in fact a little scary .
But the author is correct when he states that in the ( then ) USSR they had the exact same thing pointing at us .
Gives me the willies still.As someone who grew up in part in northern Colorado , and ran across several missile silos while out on horseback or mountain biking , I 'd like to point out that Warren AFB has helicopters , lots and lots of helicopters , and I 've been told they show up in a hurry if you spend too much time poking about a missile silo because of the rash of anti-missile protests in the '80 's .
Warren * does * have a landing strip , actually : the WWI flying ace Eddie Rickenbacher wrecked a plane there once in the 1920 's .
But AFAIK it has n't been used in 40 years .
If anyone is bored , here 's a list of coordinates for known ICBM sites [ siloworld.com ] in the US .
Here 's satellite photography of a silo I found while out riding horses [ google.com ] .
It 's empty .
There was a silo you could tour at Greeley 's Missile Silo Park [ poudretrail.org ] but from what I 've heard , the tornado two years ago ripped up all the above-ground stuff , including the museum , so it might not be all that interesting now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great article.
As someone who grew up in Cheyenne, WY near F.E.
Warren AFB (an AFB without planes or a landing strip - you can guess the mission) the details of these monsters have always fascinated me.
I'd hear stories from my friends whose dads worked either as the missile capsule crews themselves or were maintenance personnel.If Slashdot readers are flying in and out of Denver International Airport (or any area around CO, NE, WY) you can look out the window and see the launch facilities from the air.
Amid the farm lands and country roads, you can look down and see an outcrop of buildings and maybe a quonset hut or two, and then a separate concrete reinforced pad maybe a hundred yards away; the whole area carefully fenced.
You can tell they don't quite fit in with everything else.
The number of them is startling.
Yeah, in fact a little scary.
But the author is correct when he states that in the (then) USSR they had the exact same thing pointing at us.
Gives me the willies still.As someone who grew up in part in northern Colorado, and ran across several missile silos while out on horseback or mountain biking, I'd like to point out that Warren AFB has helicopters, lots and lots of helicopters, and I've been told they show up in a hurry if you spend too much time poking about a missile silo because of the rash of anti-missile protests in the '80's.
Warren *does* have a landing strip, actually: the WWI flying ace Eddie Rickenbacher wrecked a plane there once in the 1920's.
But AFAIK it hasn't been used in 40 years.
If anyone is bored, here's a list of coordinates for known ICBM sites [siloworld.com] in the US.
Here's satellite photography of a silo I found while out riding horses [google.com].
It's empty.
There was a silo you could tour at Greeley's Missile Silo Park [poudretrail.org] but from what I've heard, the tornado two years ago ripped up all the above-ground stuff, including the museum, so it might not be all that interesting now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30475734</id>
	<title>Clearing up some details.</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1261075200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The authors discusses PALs and wonders about their absence.  ICBM warheads were (and are) not equipped with PALs, because they are only required on weapons that may be exposed to capture or loss.<br>
&nbsp; <br>The authors mentions the security seems to "have a hard shell and a soft interior".  That's because he discusses the veru visible <i>security</i> measures (meant to protect against external threats) but only briefly discusses the <i>surety</i> procedures (meant to protect against internal threats and unauthorized launches) and doesn't realize the full import of the latter.  (The full details of the surety procedures are classified and are much more extensive than detailed in the article or in any public source.)  I don't think he even realizes there is a difference between the two.  I suspect, like the computer geeks I've seen here on Slashdot, that he's a little fuzzy on the difference between electronic (computer and network) security and security in the physical world.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Disclaimer: Yes, I am a former ICBM crewman - though I wore Navy blue rather than chair force blue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The authors discusses PALs and wonders about their absence .
ICBM warheads were ( and are ) not equipped with PALs , because they are only required on weapons that may be exposed to capture or loss .
  The authors mentions the security seems to " have a hard shell and a soft interior " .
That 's because he discusses the veru visible security measures ( meant to protect against external threats ) but only briefly discusses the surety procedures ( meant to protect against internal threats and unauthorized launches ) and does n't realize the full import of the latter .
( The full details of the surety procedures are classified and are much more extensive than detailed in the article or in any public source .
) I do n't think he even realizes there is a difference between the two .
I suspect , like the computer geeks I 've seen here on Slashdot , that he 's a little fuzzy on the difference between electronic ( computer and network ) security and security in the physical world .
  Disclaimer : Yes , I am a former ICBM crewman - though I wore Navy blue rather than chair force blue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The authors discusses PALs and wonders about their absence.
ICBM warheads were (and are) not equipped with PALs, because they are only required on weapons that may be exposed to capture or loss.
  The authors mentions the security seems to "have a hard shell and a soft interior".
That's because he discusses the veru visible security measures (meant to protect against external threats) but only briefly discusses the surety procedures (meant to protect against internal threats and unauthorized launches) and doesn't realize the full import of the latter.
(The full details of the surety procedures are classified and are much more extensive than detailed in the article or in any public source.
)  I don't think he even realizes there is a difference between the two.
I suspect, like the computer geeks I've seen here on Slashdot, that he's a little fuzzy on the difference between electronic (computer and network) security and security in the physical world.
  Disclaimer: Yes, I am a former ICBM crewman - though I wore Navy blue rather than chair force blue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30476268</id>
	<title>Re:And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261077480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was trained while in the US Navy to protect nuclear weapons. We had two-person control. We were also armed with Colt<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.45s. 1 each. Two guards stood watch at 1 entrance. If there was another entrance, two more guards were posted. Anyone entering had to have two-person control, be on the access list, have a valid reason for being in the area to perform work signed off by the Weapons Officer, XO and CO (if not even a few more persons).</p><p>Anyone believed to be causing harm to the weapons or interfering with the guards to prevent them from doing their duties was to be shot. Dead. The guards had that authority.</p><p>It was a responsibility we all took very seriously. If maintenance had to be performed on a weapon or equipment protecting the weapon all persons signing off were usually present to oversee the maintenance that was taking place. And, two more armed guards were used to be present in the area where maintenance was performed. They also knew how to perform the maintenance themselves so no funny stuff could be performed.</p><p>Something tells me that those keys were kept in a safe place and only above that cabinet for display. If someone brought a 20 lb sledge near one of my weapons, my other guard and myself would have drawn weapons and *aimed* at that person. If they refused to put down the sledge and made motions to the effect that they intend to harm the weapon or equipment protecting the weapons I would have shot them dead. I would not have lost any sleep over the matter.</p><p>All that being said, two-person control is a major pain in the ass and it is designed to be. It ensures, as much as feasibly possible, that the people involved treat the weapons, equipment and personnel protecting the weapons with the highest regard because failure to protect the weapons constitutes an immediate and grave danger to the United States and its people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was trained while in the US Navy to protect nuclear weapons .
We had two-person control .
We were also armed with Colt .45s .
1 each .
Two guards stood watch at 1 entrance .
If there was another entrance , two more guards were posted .
Anyone entering had to have two-person control , be on the access list , have a valid reason for being in the area to perform work signed off by the Weapons Officer , XO and CO ( if not even a few more persons ) .Anyone believed to be causing harm to the weapons or interfering with the guards to prevent them from doing their duties was to be shot .
Dead. The guards had that authority.It was a responsibility we all took very seriously .
If maintenance had to be performed on a weapon or equipment protecting the weapon all persons signing off were usually present to oversee the maintenance that was taking place .
And , two more armed guards were used to be present in the area where maintenance was performed .
They also knew how to perform the maintenance themselves so no funny stuff could be performed.Something tells me that those keys were kept in a safe place and only above that cabinet for display .
If someone brought a 20 lb sledge near one of my weapons , my other guard and myself would have drawn weapons and * aimed * at that person .
If they refused to put down the sledge and made motions to the effect that they intend to harm the weapon or equipment protecting the weapons I would have shot them dead .
I would not have lost any sleep over the matter.All that being said , two-person control is a major pain in the ass and it is designed to be .
It ensures , as much as feasibly possible , that the people involved treat the weapons , equipment and personnel protecting the weapons with the highest regard because failure to protect the weapons constitutes an immediate and grave danger to the United States and its people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was trained while in the US Navy to protect nuclear weapons.
We had two-person control.
We were also armed with Colt .45s.
1 each.
Two guards stood watch at 1 entrance.
If there was another entrance, two more guards were posted.
Anyone entering had to have two-person control, be on the access list, have a valid reason for being in the area to perform work signed off by the Weapons Officer, XO and CO (if not even a few more persons).Anyone believed to be causing harm to the weapons or interfering with the guards to prevent them from doing their duties was to be shot.
Dead. The guards had that authority.It was a responsibility we all took very seriously.
If maintenance had to be performed on a weapon or equipment protecting the weapon all persons signing off were usually present to oversee the maintenance that was taking place.
And, two more armed guards were used to be present in the area where maintenance was performed.
They also knew how to perform the maintenance themselves so no funny stuff could be performed.Something tells me that those keys were kept in a safe place and only above that cabinet for display.
If someone brought a 20 lb sledge near one of my weapons, my other guard and myself would have drawn weapons and *aimed* at that person.
If they refused to put down the sledge and made motions to the effect that they intend to harm the weapon or equipment protecting the weapons I would have shot them dead.
I would not have lost any sleep over the matter.All that being said, two-person control is a major pain in the ass and it is designed to be.
It ensures, as much as feasibly possible, that the people involved treat the weapons, equipment and personnel protecting the weapons with the highest regard because failure to protect the weapons constitutes an immediate and grave danger to the United States and its people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30473944</id>
	<title>Re:And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>0123456</author>
	<datestamp>1261067640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't these the people who, according to a previous Slashdot story, set the launch codes to all zeros just in case they lost the keys?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't these the people who , according to a previous Slashdot story , set the launch codes to all zeros just in case they lost the keys ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't these the people who, according to a previous Slashdot story, set the launch codes to all zeros just in case they lost the keys?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472444</id>
	<title>This is a well-written, thoughtful article</title>
	<author>mantis2009</author>
	<datestamp>1261059840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>An article this excellent is rare enough that it deserves special recognition.  Thanks to the author for taking this trip to the middle of nowhere, and relating the experience so lucidly, that I feel almost like I was there myself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An article this excellent is rare enough that it deserves special recognition .
Thanks to the author for taking this trip to the middle of nowhere , and relating the experience so lucidly , that I feel almost like I was there myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An article this excellent is rare enough that it deserves special recognition.
Thanks to the author for taking this trip to the middle of nowhere, and relating the experience so lucidly, that I feel almost like I was there myself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30473732</id>
	<title>Re:And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>SBrach</author>
	<datestamp>1261066920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have toured this site and it is very impressive.  As far as getting in, they have a phone at the entrance to the silo that you use to contact an officer inside the silo and code in.  Once he opens the first blast door you enter a corridor that is basically an airlock.  The 1st blast door closes behind you and you have so many seconds to get to the second blast door phone and code in. If you don't make it or fail to code in correctly there were several truck loads troops on their way from nearby Davis-Monthan AFB.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have toured this site and it is very impressive .
As far as getting in , they have a phone at the entrance to the silo that you use to contact an officer inside the silo and code in .
Once he opens the first blast door you enter a corridor that is basically an airlock .
The 1st blast door closes behind you and you have so many seconds to get to the second blast door phone and code in .
If you do n't make it or fail to code in correctly there were several truck loads troops on their way from nearby Davis-Monthan AFB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have toured this site and it is very impressive.
As far as getting in, they have a phone at the entrance to the silo that you use to contact an officer inside the silo and code in.
Once he opens the first blast door you enter a corridor that is basically an airlock.
The 1st blast door closes behind you and you have so many seconds to get to the second blast door phone and code in.
If you don't make it or fail to code in correctly there were several truck loads troops on their way from nearby Davis-Monthan AFB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30474916</id>
	<title>Re:co-ed</title>
	<author>SBrach</author>
	<datestamp>1261071720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not like they had a wood door with a deadbolt.  They were locked in an underground bunker with 8ft thick concrete walls and multiple 3ft thick steel blast doors.  They were not going to let their "friends" inside.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like they had a wood door with a deadbolt .
They were locked in an underground bunker with 8ft thick concrete walls and multiple 3ft thick steel blast doors .
They were not going to let their " friends " inside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like they had a wood door with a deadbolt.
They were locked in an underground bunker with 8ft thick concrete walls and multiple 3ft thick steel blast doors.
They were not going to let their "friends" inside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30476982</id>
	<title>Re:Water</title>
	<author>snspdaarf</author>
	<datestamp>1261080000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are a fool, Badenov.
<br>
First, you have to kill moose and squirrel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a fool , Badenov .
First , you have to kill moose and squirrel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a fool, Badenov.
First, you have to kill moose and squirrel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472340</id>
	<title>Willy on Wheels.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261058760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Willy&amp;oldid=332275389" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Click this link and click save page.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Click this link and click save page .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Click this link and click save page.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472640</id>
	<title>Re:And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1261061520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; They wouldn't stop anyone who was determined to get in, BUT they would slow them down.  The general idea was that in the event that one person went a bit mad, they couldn't launch by themselves.  There's always someone handy to stop you.  I think the more important part of the buddy system was that you always had someone to talk to.  Down in a hole all alone, you're more likely to lose it.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Then again, I used to spend hours on end in datacenters by myself.  No windows, no idea of how the outside world looked, and very frequently no cell phone service. (not blocked, but not good because of all the metal and electronic noise or location of the facility).  It gets lonely, and if the only thing I had to do was wait for a phone call that said "nuke someone", I probably would have lost it.   I talked to my servers, and they (in their own way) talked to me.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    They would n't stop anyone who was determined to get in , BUT they would slow them down .
The general idea was that in the event that one person went a bit mad , they could n't launch by themselves .
There 's always someone handy to stop you .
I think the more important part of the buddy system was that you always had someone to talk to .
Down in a hole all alone , you 're more likely to lose it .
      Then again , I used to spend hours on end in datacenters by myself .
No windows , no idea of how the outside world looked , and very frequently no cell phone service .
( not blocked , but not good because of all the metal and electronic noise or location of the facility ) .
It gets lonely , and if the only thing I had to do was wait for a phone call that said " nuke someone " , I probably would have lost it .
I talked to my servers , and they ( in their own way ) talked to me .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    They wouldn't stop anyone who was determined to get in, BUT they would slow them down.
The general idea was that in the event that one person went a bit mad, they couldn't launch by themselves.
There's always someone handy to stop you.
I think the more important part of the buddy system was that you always had someone to talk to.
Down in a hole all alone, you're more likely to lose it.
      Then again, I used to spend hours on end in datacenters by myself.
No windows, no idea of how the outside world looked, and very frequently no cell phone service.
(not blocked, but not good because of all the metal and electronic noise or location of the facility).
It gets lonely, and if the only thing I had to do was wait for a phone call that said "nuke someone", I probably would have lost it.
I talked to my servers, and they (in their own way) talked to me.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30473650</id>
	<title>Good thing...</title>
	<author>Vexler</author>
	<datestamp>1261066680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am so glad to hear that the toilet is *OUTSIDE* the "no lone zone".</p><p>"Is the Colonel's underwear a matter of national security?" - Lt. Kaffee, "A Few Good Men"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am so glad to hear that the toilet is * OUTSIDE * the " no lone zone " .
" Is the Colonel 's underwear a matter of national security ?
" - Lt. Kaffee , " A Few Good Men "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am so glad to hear that the toilet is *OUTSIDE* the "no lone zone".
"Is the Colonel's underwear a matter of national security?
" - Lt. Kaffee, "A Few Good Men"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30480922</id>
	<title>Re:And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1261052100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's a violation of the UCMJ and also the exact reason the submarine nuclear deterrent force was required to operate as they did.<br><br>And also why they no longer operate in that fashion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but I 'm pretty sure that 's a violation of the UCMJ and also the exact reason the submarine nuclear deterrent force was required to operate as they did.And also why they no longer operate in that fashion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's a violation of the UCMJ and also the exact reason the submarine nuclear deterrent force was required to operate as they did.And also why they no longer operate in that fashion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30477066</id>
	<title>Frist sto4.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261080240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>users. BSD/OS</htmltext>
<tokenext>users .
BSD/OS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>users.
BSD/OS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472442</id>
	<title>Good Read.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261059780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing that speaks to me while reading stories like this is how far we have actually managed to get, in a relatively short period of time. At one point both were stockpiling nuke upon nuke and then it all went away to what it is today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that speaks to me while reading stories like this is how far we have actually managed to get , in a relatively short period of time .
At one point both were stockpiling nuke upon nuke and then it all went away to what it is today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that speaks to me while reading stories like this is how far we have actually managed to get, in a relatively short period of time.
At one point both were stockpiling nuke upon nuke and then it all went away to what it is today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30475034</id>
	<title>No one has ever actually been put to the test...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261072140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it sort of hard to believe that no drills were ever conducted.  The launch facilities are closed environments; the military could tell the workers there anything, and could lead them to believe that they needed to launch.  This could be done with either the missile deactivated, or as part of a planned missile test with a dummy warhead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it sort of hard to believe that no drills were ever conducted .
The launch facilities are closed environments ; the military could tell the workers there anything , and could lead them to believe that they needed to launch .
This could be done with either the missile deactivated , or as part of a planned missile test with a dummy warhead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it sort of hard to believe that no drills were ever conducted.
The launch facilities are closed environments; the military could tell the workers there anything, and could lead them to believe that they needed to launch.
This could be done with either the missile deactivated, or as part of a planned missile test with a dummy warhead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30483614</id>
	<title>Re:I've been inside one of the abandoned sites!</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1261071480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd have been freaked out if I went inside one of those things. Dark, possibly habitat to animals and insects, things that could fall on me, and did I mention dark?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd have been freaked out if I went inside one of those things .
Dark , possibly habitat to animals and insects , things that could fall on me , and did I mention dark ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd have been freaked out if I went inside one of those things.
Dark, possibly habitat to animals and insects, things that could fall on me, and did I mention dark?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30475824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30476538</id>
	<title>Re:And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1261078500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I joke but human redundancy is probably your best bet and pretty reassuring considering I've seen Dr. Strangelove twenty times or so.</i></p><p>On the 19th viewing of Dr. Strangelove, human redundancy isn't your best bet. Apparently? (I don't see how the beginning of the sentence relates to the end of it.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I joke but human redundancy is probably your best bet and pretty reassuring considering I 've seen Dr. Strangelove twenty times or so.On the 19th viewing of Dr. Strangelove , human redundancy is n't your best bet .
Apparently ? ( I do n't see how the beginning of the sentence relates to the end of it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I joke but human redundancy is probably your best bet and pretty reassuring considering I've seen Dr. Strangelove twenty times or so.On the 19th viewing of Dr. Strangelove, human redundancy isn't your best bet.
Apparently? (I don't see how the beginning of the sentence relates to the end of it.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472438</id>
	<title>Re:And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261059780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given enough time and physical access, anything is breakable. But the security guard who let you in might have an issue with your sledge hammer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given enough time and physical access , anything is breakable .
But the security guard who let you in might have an issue with your sledge hammer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given enough time and physical access, anything is breakable.
But the security guard who let you in might have an issue with your sledge hammer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472684</id>
	<title>And from above . . .</title>
	<author>PolarIced</author>
	<datestamp>1261061820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great article. As someone who grew up in Cheyenne, WY near F.E. Warren AFB (an AFB without planes or a landing strip - you can guess the mission) the details of these monsters have always fascinated me. I'd hear stories from my friends whose dads worked either as the missile capsule crews themselves or were maintenance personnel.</p><p>If Slashdot readers are flying in and out of Denver International Airport (or any area around CO, NE, WY) you can look out the window and see the launch facilities from the air. Amid the farm lands and country roads, you can look down and see an outcrop of buildings and maybe a quonset hut or two, and then a separate concrete reinforced pad maybe a hundred yards away; the whole area carefully fenced. You can tell they don't quite fit in with everything else. The number of them is startling. Yeah, in fact a little scary. But the author is correct when he states that in the (then) USSR they had the exact same thing pointing at us. Gives me the willies still.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great article .
As someone who grew up in Cheyenne , WY near F.E .
Warren AFB ( an AFB without planes or a landing strip - you can guess the mission ) the details of these monsters have always fascinated me .
I 'd hear stories from my friends whose dads worked either as the missile capsule crews themselves or were maintenance personnel.If Slashdot readers are flying in and out of Denver International Airport ( or any area around CO , NE , WY ) you can look out the window and see the launch facilities from the air .
Amid the farm lands and country roads , you can look down and see an outcrop of buildings and maybe a quonset hut or two , and then a separate concrete reinforced pad maybe a hundred yards away ; the whole area carefully fenced .
You can tell they do n't quite fit in with everything else .
The number of them is startling .
Yeah , in fact a little scary .
But the author is correct when he states that in the ( then ) USSR they had the exact same thing pointing at us .
Gives me the willies still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great article.
As someone who grew up in Cheyenne, WY near F.E.
Warren AFB (an AFB without planes or a landing strip - you can guess the mission) the details of these monsters have always fascinated me.
I'd hear stories from my friends whose dads worked either as the missile capsule crews themselves or were maintenance personnel.If Slashdot readers are flying in and out of Denver International Airport (or any area around CO, NE, WY) you can look out the window and see the launch facilities from the air.
Amid the farm lands and country roads, you can look down and see an outcrop of buildings and maybe a quonset hut or two, and then a separate concrete reinforced pad maybe a hundred yards away; the whole area carefully fenced.
You can tell they don't quite fit in with everything else.
The number of them is startling.
Yeah, in fact a little scary.
But the author is correct when he states that in the (then) USSR they had the exact same thing pointing at us.
Gives me the willies still.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30473154</id>
	<title>More on Titan I</title>
	<author>flattop100</author>
	<datestamp>1261064460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to point you all to the Titan I Epitaph website: <a href="http://www.chromehooves.net/Titan\_Epitaph\_main.htm" title="chromehooves.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.chromehooves.net/Titan\_Epitaph\_main.htm</a> [chromehooves.net] . It's 2 parts urban exploring, 2 parts history, and a surprising amount of original technical documentation (including a "guidebook for the planning, construction, phasing, systems integration, installation and checkout, turnover and activation of the operational Titan I complexes and their support facilities").

If you've got an afternoon to waste, you won't be disappointed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to point you all to the Titan I Epitaph website : http : //www.chromehooves.net/Titan \ _Epitaph \ _main.htm [ chromehooves.net ] .
It 's 2 parts urban exploring , 2 parts history , and a surprising amount of original technical documentation ( including a " guidebook for the planning , construction , phasing , systems integration , installation and checkout , turnover and activation of the operational Titan I complexes and their support facilities " ) .
If you 've got an afternoon to waste , you wo n't be disappointed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to point you all to the Titan I Epitaph website: http://www.chromehooves.net/Titan\_Epitaph\_main.htm [chromehooves.net] .
It's 2 parts urban exploring, 2 parts history, and a surprising amount of original technical documentation (including a "guidebook for the planning, construction, phasing, systems integration, installation and checkout, turnover and activation of the operational Titan I complexes and their support facilities").
If you've got an afternoon to waste, you won't be disappointed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30500066</id>
	<title>Why are these photos in black and white?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261254240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This guy can afford to go there but can't afford a real camera?  Or is he just some artsy asshole who wants to make a "statement".  Idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy can afford to go there but ca n't afford a real camera ?
Or is he just some artsy asshole who wants to make a " statement " .
Idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy can afford to go there but can't afford a real camera?
Or is he just some artsy asshole who wants to make a "statement".
Idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472522</id>
	<title>Re:And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>Gravitron 5000</author>
	<datestamp>1261060620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If he killed you he would be countermanding the no lone policy.  Your buddy would risk being shot by the next pair of people to show up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If he killed you he would be countermanding the no lone policy .
Your buddy would risk being shot by the next pair of people to show up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he killed you he would be countermanding the no lone policy.
Your buddy would risk being shot by the next pair of people to show up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30476556</id>
	<title>You Fail IT..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261078500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[idge.ne7]</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ idge.ne7 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[idge.ne7]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30479116</id>
	<title>Re:And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>asdfghjklqwertyuiop</author>
	<datestamp>1261044540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The point is to make sure that it takes two launch officers to launch a missile.</p></div></blockquote><p>Or one officer with an angle grinder or bolt cutters?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is to make sure that it takes two launch officers to launch a missile.Or one officer with an angle grinder or bolt cutters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is to make sure that it takes two launch officers to launch a missile.Or one officer with an angle grinder or bolt cutters?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472436</id>
	<title>Re:And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1261059720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the <b>buddy system</b>!</p><p>I joke but human redundancy is probably your best bet and pretty reassuring considering I've seen Dr. Strangelove twenty times or so.  Also I enjoyed <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattblaze/4181758601/" title="flickr.com">this picture</a> [flickr.com].  Is it a good idea to store the keys right above the safe to the Emergency War Orders?  No matter, if you know the combination to the lock and have a twenty pound sledge, those hastily welded rings holding on the safety padlocks will take a few seconds to remove.</p></div><p>Did you read the text accompanying that picture?</p><p>Those keys would not have been on top of the cabinet there - that's a display for the tourists.</p><p>Each launch officer had a key to one padlock, meaning that two launch officers were necessary to open that cabinet.  The point isn't to keep some random guy from walking in and launching a missile...  That's what all the guards, barbed wire, blast doors, etc. are for.  The point is to make sure that it takes two launch officers to launch a missile.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... the buddy system ! I joke but human redundancy is probably your best bet and pretty reassuring considering I 've seen Dr. Strangelove twenty times or so .
Also I enjoyed this picture [ flickr.com ] .
Is it a good idea to store the keys right above the safe to the Emergency War Orders ?
No matter , if you know the combination to the lock and have a twenty pound sledge , those hastily welded rings holding on the safety padlocks will take a few seconds to remove.Did you read the text accompanying that picture ? Those keys would not have been on top of the cabinet there - that 's a display for the tourists.Each launch officer had a key to one padlock , meaning that two launch officers were necessary to open that cabinet .
The point is n't to keep some random guy from walking in and launching a missile... That 's what all the guards , barbed wire , blast doors , etc .
are for .
The point is to make sure that it takes two launch officers to launch a missile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... the buddy system!I joke but human redundancy is probably your best bet and pretty reassuring considering I've seen Dr. Strangelove twenty times or so.
Also I enjoyed this picture [flickr.com].
Is it a good idea to store the keys right above the safe to the Emergency War Orders?
No matter, if you know the combination to the lock and have a twenty pound sledge, those hastily welded rings holding on the safety padlocks will take a few seconds to remove.Did you read the text accompanying that picture?Those keys would not have been on top of the cabinet there - that's a display for the tourists.Each launch officer had a key to one padlock, meaning that two launch officers were necessary to open that cabinet.
The point isn't to keep some random guy from walking in and launching a missile...  That's what all the guards, barbed wire, blast doors, etc.
are for.
The point is to make sure that it takes two launch officers to launch a missile.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30483246</id>
	<title>This is the Titan Missle Museum in AZ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like very few people have noticed that this is the Titan Missile Museum in Tucson, Arizona, which is entirely open to the public. I toured the same place and took pictures very much like what is in the article. It's definitely high up there in the list of cool places for a geek to visit while on vacation:</p><p><a href="http://www.titanmissilemuseum.org/" title="titanmissilemuseum.org">http://www.titanmissilemuseum.org/</a> [titanmissilemuseum.org]</p><p>I would also recommend the nearby Pima Air and Space Museum, also in Tucson. There is also supposedly the Biosphere II one could visit, although I didn't get to see that. As a Coloradoan, my road trip through New Mexico, Arizona and Utah was the best I've ever taken. Maybe not up there in a typical tourist's list of places to visit, but if you're a geek, there are plenty of aerospace and nuclear related things which are totally awesome. Hope to go down there again someday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like very few people have noticed that this is the Titan Missile Museum in Tucson , Arizona , which is entirely open to the public .
I toured the same place and took pictures very much like what is in the article .
It 's definitely high up there in the list of cool places for a geek to visit while on vacation : http : //www.titanmissilemuseum.org/ [ titanmissilemuseum.org ] I would also recommend the nearby Pima Air and Space Museum , also in Tucson .
There is also supposedly the Biosphere II one could visit , although I did n't get to see that .
As a Coloradoan , my road trip through New Mexico , Arizona and Utah was the best I 've ever taken .
Maybe not up there in a typical tourist 's list of places to visit , but if you 're a geek , there are plenty of aerospace and nuclear related things which are totally awesome .
Hope to go down there again someday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like very few people have noticed that this is the Titan Missile Museum in Tucson, Arizona, which is entirely open to the public.
I toured the same place and took pictures very much like what is in the article.
It's definitely high up there in the list of cool places for a geek to visit while on vacation:http://www.titanmissilemuseum.org/ [titanmissilemuseum.org]I would also recommend the nearby Pima Air and Space Museum, also in Tucson.
There is also supposedly the Biosphere II one could visit, although I didn't get to see that.
As a Coloradoan, my road trip through New Mexico, Arizona and Utah was the best I've ever taken.
Maybe not up there in a typical tourist's list of places to visit, but if you're a geek, there are plenty of aerospace and nuclear related things which are totally awesome.
Hope to go down there again someday.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30474860</id>
	<title>You can tour a Minuteman missle complex...</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1261071480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...in <a href="http://www.nps.gov/mimi/index.htm" title="nps.gov">South Dakota</a> [nps.gov].  The cool thing is that the tours are small (6-8 people), and are led by folks who were actually in the bunkers when they were active. Fascinating stuff...like how the escape hatch actually led to a spot <i>under the parking lot asphalt</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...in South Dakota [ nps.gov ] .
The cool thing is that the tours are small ( 6-8 people ) , and are led by folks who were actually in the bunkers when they were active .
Fascinating stuff...like how the escape hatch actually led to a spot under the parking lot asphalt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...in South Dakota [nps.gov].
The cool thing is that the tours are small (6-8 people), and are led by folks who were actually in the bunkers when they were active.
Fascinating stuff...like how the escape hatch actually led to a spot under the parking lot asphalt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472366</id>
	<title>Water</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1261058940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>. Jets at the bottom of the silo spray water at the exhaust flames during a launch to create steam, which dampens the massive sound and vibration created by the engines, preventing damage to the missile surface as it leaves the silo</p></div><p>So, all we'd have to do is turn off the valve from the pond that says "DON'T TURN OFF!" and the missile will ruin itself on launch.</p><p>Da?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
Jets at the bottom of the silo spray water at the exhaust flames during a launch to create steam , which dampens the massive sound and vibration created by the engines , preventing damage to the missile surface as it leaves the siloSo , all we 'd have to do is turn off the valve from the pond that says " DO N'T TURN OFF !
" and the missile will ruin itself on launch.Da ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
Jets at the bottom of the silo spray water at the exhaust flames during a launch to create steam, which dampens the massive sound and vibration created by the engines, preventing damage to the missile surface as it leaves the siloSo, all we'd have to do is turn off the valve from the pond that says "DON'T TURN OFF!
" and the missile will ruin itself on launch.Da?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30474418</id>
	<title>More links, with photos.</title>
	<author>MtlDty</author>
	<datestamp>1261069500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love reading things like this, but the article desperately needed more photos in my opinion. <a href="http://phildorsett.com/silo.html" title="phildorsett.com">This</a> [phildorsett.com] is a nice page regarding the older Atlas launch silos, which are now decommissioned and (in this case) have private owners. <a href="http://www.captainswoop.com/icbm/mslpull4a.html" title="captainswoop.com">This page</a> [captainswoop.com] is a nice view of a Minuteman III launch facility, which are expected to be in operation until 2025.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love reading things like this , but the article desperately needed more photos in my opinion .
This [ phildorsett.com ] is a nice page regarding the older Atlas launch silos , which are now decommissioned and ( in this case ) have private owners .
This page [ captainswoop.com ] is a nice view of a Minuteman III launch facility , which are expected to be in operation until 2025 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love reading things like this, but the article desperately needed more photos in my opinion.
This [phildorsett.com] is a nice page regarding the older Atlas launch silos, which are now decommissioned and (in this case) have private owners.
This page [captainswoop.com] is a nice view of a Minuteman III launch facility, which are expected to be in operation until 2025.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30473244</id>
	<title>Star Trek was here</title>
	<author>TooTechy</author>
	<datestamp>1261064880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just an FYI but Star Trek First Contact was filmed here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just an FYI but Star Trek First Contact was filmed here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just an FYI but Star Trek First Contact was filmed here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472458</id>
	<title>Re:And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1261059960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i bet they had weapons and live ammo with them so if you tried to break into the safe by yourself your buddy might have to shoot you. or beat you with something else from behind while you are concentrating on breaking into the safe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i bet they had weapons and live ammo with them so if you tried to break into the safe by yourself your buddy might have to shoot you .
or beat you with something else from behind while you are concentrating on breaking into the safe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i bet they had weapons and live ammo with them so if you tried to break into the safe by yourself your buddy might have to shoot you.
or beat you with something else from behind while you are concentrating on breaking into the safe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30476586</id>
	<title>No lone zones are not new</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1261078620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Banks frequently have at least two people present when counting cash. For obvious reasons.</p><p>In a number of places where I have worked we usually had two people present when moving databases or critical software to production. It didn't matter i the person watching was a junior member of the team or not. Their role was to double check things, e.g. make sure current backups are available, the person doing the rollout was pointed at the correct server, the correct release version was being used.They could call out "stop" at any time if something didn't look OK.</p><p>I highly recommend it. It also doubles as a training session for the junior team members.</p><p>Often times your best tools are common sense and decent procedures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Banks frequently have at least two people present when counting cash .
For obvious reasons.In a number of places where I have worked we usually had two people present when moving databases or critical software to production .
It did n't matter i the person watching was a junior member of the team or not .
Their role was to double check things , e.g .
make sure current backups are available , the person doing the rollout was pointed at the correct server , the correct release version was being used.They could call out " stop " at any time if something did n't look OK.I highly recommend it .
It also doubles as a training session for the junior team members.Often times your best tools are common sense and decent procedures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Banks frequently have at least two people present when counting cash.
For obvious reasons.In a number of places where I have worked we usually had two people present when moving databases or critical software to production.
It didn't matter i the person watching was a junior member of the team or not.
Their role was to double check things, e.g.
make sure current backups are available, the person doing the rollout was pointed at the correct server, the correct release version was being used.They could call out "stop" at any time if something didn't look OK.I highly recommend it.
It also doubles as a training session for the junior team members.Often times your best tools are common sense and decent procedures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472776</id>
	<title>Re:And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261062420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Each launch officer had a key to one padlock, meaning that two launch officers were necessary to open that cabinet.</p></div><p>Obviously you didn't read the article.  That cylinder in the middle is a combination lock.  And if you think about the physics of it, removing one lock and knowing the combination will gain you entry.  Who didn't read the article/understand basic hinges?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Each launch officer had a key to one padlock , meaning that two launch officers were necessary to open that cabinet.Obviously you did n't read the article .
That cylinder in the middle is a combination lock .
And if you think about the physics of it , removing one lock and knowing the combination will gain you entry .
Who did n't read the article/understand basic hinges ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each launch officer had a key to one padlock, meaning that two launch officers were necessary to open that cabinet.Obviously you didn't read the article.
That cylinder in the middle is a combination lock.
And if you think about the physics of it, removing one lock and knowing the combination will gain you entry.
Who didn't read the article/understand basic hinges?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472470</id>
	<title>What if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261060080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ICBM Security Looks At Computer Scientist</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ICBM Security Looks At Computer Scientist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ICBM Security Looks At Computer Scientist</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472410</id>
	<title>Re:And the Futuristic Safety Mechanism Is ...</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1261059420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes the buddy system is hardly confined to missile silos. I was a day labourer and factory worker in Oz during the 70's &amp; 80's, standard industrial saftey rules say that no worker is to be alone where machinery or confined spaces are involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes the buddy system is hardly confined to missile silos .
I was a day labourer and factory worker in Oz during the 70 's &amp; 80 's , standard industrial saftey rules say that no worker is to be alone where machinery or confined spaces are involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes the buddy system is hardly confined to missile silos.
I was a day labourer and factory worker in Oz during the 70's &amp; 80's, standard industrial saftey rules say that no worker is to be alone where machinery or confined spaces are involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472728</id>
	<title>A Nuclear Family Vacation</title>
	<author>necro81</author>
	<datestamp>1261062000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those who are interested to read more about the global nuclear complex are encouraged to read a recent book <a href="http://www.nuclearvacation.com/" title="nuclearvacation.com"> <i>A Nuclear Family Vacation</i> </a> [nuclearvacation.com].  It is written by a husband-wife duo, both of which are professional writers/journalists, both with a professional focus in defense.  They spent a number of family vacations visiting landmarks of nuclear significance: the Trinity Test Site, Nevada Test Site, Oak Ridge, Kwajalein atoll, Cheney's "undisclosed location" bunker, Cheyenne Mountain, a Soviet test site in Kazakhstan, a Soviet secret city (like Los Alamos), and even eventually visited Iran's enrichment facility near Isfahan.  Along the way, aside from the basic travelogue reporting of what's there, they reflect a bit on the enormity of the whole system, how it worked, and the miracle that we're still alive.  They also discuss the current state and future of the US nuclear arsenal, the reliable replacement warhead program, and point out that there are still plenty of nukes out there, and Armageddon is still only about 30 minutes away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those who are interested to read more about the global nuclear complex are encouraged to read a recent book A Nuclear Family Vacation [ nuclearvacation.com ] .
It is written by a husband-wife duo , both of which are professional writers/journalists , both with a professional focus in defense .
They spent a number of family vacations visiting landmarks of nuclear significance : the Trinity Test Site , Nevada Test Site , Oak Ridge , Kwajalein atoll , Cheney 's " undisclosed location " bunker , Cheyenne Mountain , a Soviet test site in Kazakhstan , a Soviet secret city ( like Los Alamos ) , and even eventually visited Iran 's enrichment facility near Isfahan .
Along the way , aside from the basic travelogue reporting of what 's there , they reflect a bit on the enormity of the whole system , how it worked , and the miracle that we 're still alive .
They also discuss the current state and future of the US nuclear arsenal , the reliable replacement warhead program , and point out that there are still plenty of nukes out there , and Armageddon is still only about 30 minutes away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those who are interested to read more about the global nuclear complex are encouraged to read a recent book  A Nuclear Family Vacation  [nuclearvacation.com].
It is written by a husband-wife duo, both of which are professional writers/journalists, both with a professional focus in defense.
They spent a number of family vacations visiting landmarks of nuclear significance: the Trinity Test Site, Nevada Test Site, Oak Ridge, Kwajalein atoll, Cheney's "undisclosed location" bunker, Cheyenne Mountain, a Soviet test site in Kazakhstan, a Soviet secret city (like Los Alamos), and even eventually visited Iran's enrichment facility near Isfahan.
Along the way, aside from the basic travelogue reporting of what's there, they reflect a bit on the enormity of the whole system, how it worked, and the miracle that we're still alive.
They also discuss the current state and future of the US nuclear arsenal, the reliable replacement warhead program, and point out that there are still plenty of nukes out there, and Armageddon is still only about 30 minutes away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30473960</id>
	<title>I am a Nuke Officer right now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the policies that SAC (Strategic Air Command) enacted are still present in every day life of a Missileer (Those of us who still man underground silos).  Mainly concepts like TPC (Two person concept) along with TPC (Two person control).  Both of these allow us to operate in a very safe environment.  The best time the public hears about nukes is when they don't hear about them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the policies that SAC ( Strategic Air Command ) enacted are still present in every day life of a Missileer ( Those of us who still man underground silos ) .
Mainly concepts like TPC ( Two person concept ) along with TPC ( Two person control ) .
Both of these allow us to operate in a very safe environment .
The best time the public hears about nukes is when they do n't hear about them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the policies that SAC (Strategic Air Command) enacted are still present in every day life of a Missileer (Those of us who still man underground silos).
Mainly concepts like TPC (Two person concept) along with TPC (Two person control).
Both of these allow us to operate in a very safe environment.
The best time the public hears about nukes is when they don't hear about them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472540</id>
	<title>Soviet Union</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261060860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"fueled and ready to be launched toward the Soviet Union on a few minutes notice."</p><p>So what if the Limeys decided to get some revenge for 1776?  Or those goddam sneaky cheese-eating rat-bastard French?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" fueled and ready to be launched toward the Soviet Union on a few minutes notice .
" So what if the Limeys decided to get some revenge for 1776 ?
Or those goddam sneaky cheese-eating rat-bastard French ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"fueled and ready to be launched toward the Soviet Union on a few minutes notice.
"So what if the Limeys decided to get some revenge for 1776?
Or those goddam sneaky cheese-eating rat-bastard French?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30475678</id>
	<title>What Security?      Where is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261075080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>President-VICE Richard B. Cheney?</p><p>Yours In Ashgabat,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>President-VICE Richard B. Cheney ? Yours In Ashgabat,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>President-VICE Richard B. Cheney?Yours In Ashgabat,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472802</id>
	<title>co-ed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261062600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is missing from the story is when they went coed and the subsequent shenanigans that resulted. It was more luck and fear than the 2-man rule that saved us from nuclear annihilation. Also, the security really wasn't that great. They were in the middle of NO-WHERE, on the corner of desert and empty.  Even so, people sent to "exercise" the protection mechanisms got pretty far.</p><p>Did anyone actually ever test the "one man inside goes bad" scenario? I expect not, or if so, they buried the results, because the probable outcome to that would have scared too many people. I.e. he shoots his buddy, opens the doors, and lets in his accomplice(s).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is missing from the story is when they went coed and the subsequent shenanigans that resulted .
It was more luck and fear than the 2-man rule that saved us from nuclear annihilation .
Also , the security really was n't that great .
They were in the middle of NO-WHERE , on the corner of desert and empty .
Even so , people sent to " exercise " the protection mechanisms got pretty far.Did anyone actually ever test the " one man inside goes bad " scenario ?
I expect not , or if so , they buried the results , because the probable outcome to that would have scared too many people .
I.e. he shoots his buddy , opens the doors , and lets in his accomplice ( s ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is missing from the story is when they went coed and the subsequent shenanigans that resulted.
It was more luck and fear than the 2-man rule that saved us from nuclear annihilation.
Also, the security really wasn't that great.
They were in the middle of NO-WHERE, on the corner of desert and empty.
Even so, people sent to "exercise" the protection mechanisms got pretty far.Did anyone actually ever test the "one man inside goes bad" scenario?
I expect not, or if so, they buried the results, because the probable outcome to that would have scared too many people.
I.e. he shoots his buddy, opens the doors, and lets in his accomplice(s).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30476538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30475592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30473732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30479116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30473944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30476982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30473514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30480922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30483614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30475824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30474680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30474916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_045236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30476268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_045236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_045236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_045236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_045236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_045236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30473514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30474916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30474680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_045236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_045236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30475592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_045236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_045236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30473960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_045236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30476982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_045236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30483246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_045236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30474394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_045236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30475824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30483614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_045236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30473732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30476538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30473944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30476268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30479116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472530
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30480922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_045236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30474418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_045236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_045236.30472728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
